When I was a Christian, one of the biggest reasons I had for believing the Bible was that it contained actual prophecy — or so I thought. I mean, if a book gave specific, detailed prophecies that no one could have guessed, and then they came true, wouldn’t that be good reason for believing that God may have had something to do with that book? How could a mere human accomplish such a thing? And it’s not just that the Bible sometimes got it right, it always got it right — or so I believed.
According to the Bible, a good test of whether or not someone is a true prophet is the accuracy of their prophecy. Makes sense, I suppose. Just as chefs are judged on the quality of their cooking, so prophets should be judged by the quality of their predictions. In the case of chefs, no one claims that God is required to make them great. But if you could show that someone was a true prophet, that would be fantastic evidence that God might be speaking through them. An unreliable prophet, on the other hand…:
when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.
— Deut 18:22
An inaccurate prophet is no prophet at all, in other words. He does not speak for God. This is a great litmus test for anyone claiming to have divine revelation. It was my belief that the Bible passed this test with flying colors… but does it?
When the Bible Gets It Right
When I was a Christian, one of prophecies that always stood out to me was that of King Josiah:
And behold, a man of God came out of Judah by the word of the Lord to Bethel. Jeroboam was standing by the altar to make offerings. And the man cried against the altar by the word of the Lord and said, “O altar, altar, thus says the Lord: ‘Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name, and he shall sacrifice on you the priests of the high places who make offerings on you, and human bones shall be burned on you.'”
— 1 Kings 13:1-2
This is a very specific prophecy. While there’s no timeline given, the prophet says that someone in David’s line would be born who would use that altar to sacrifice false priests and that the man’s name would be Josiah. In 2 Kings 23, this prophecy comes true about 300 years later! This was a prophecy that always stuck in my mind as being too marvelous for any mere mortal to accurately predict — surely God had inspired that prophet!
But as it turns out, the 300 year time difference is misleading. 1 and 2 Kings are just two halves of the same book. The same authors that wrote or compiled 1 Kings 13 also wrote or compiled 2 Kings 23. Therefore, there’s no way to know if that prophet ever existed, much less that he actually gave a prophecy concerning a king who would come 300 years later. In other words, this doesn’t really count as evidence of a true prophecy. Maybe the event really happened, but since both the event and the fulfillment were recorded in the same book, there’s no good reason to take it at face value.
There are other examples we could look at as well, but I think the point comes across. Just because something at first blush appears to be an actual prophecy, it may not be upon closer examination. Still, while this might indicate that the case for the Bible’s inspiration isn’t as strong we first suspected, this would not have caused me to question its inspiration when I was a believer. I would have needed something bigger.
When the Bible Gets It Wrong
Jeremiah 33:17 says this:
“For thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel”
When I was growing up, this prophecy was sometimes referred to as a prediction of Christ. Hebrews 1:8 says that the throne was preserved for Jesus, and Acts 2:29-31 says this:
“Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.”
So the literal kingdom of Judah is not what Jeremiah is talking about, according to these passages. Jeremiah was foretelling a time in which Jesus would sit on the throne of an eternal, spiritual kingdom as David’s descendant. But is that really what Jeremiah intended?
If you look at the following verse, Jeremiah 33:18, you see this:
“…and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever.”
Can verse 17 still be taken figuratively in light of verse 18? According to books like Hebrews, Jesus became the new high priest forever when he was crucified and rose from the dead. So could that be the application of this particular prophecy? No. Jeremiah specifies that the priests would be Levitical — in other words, they would be of the tribe of Levi, which is the only tribe that was allowed to offer sacrifices. Jesus was not of that tribe. Hebrews gets around this problem by linking Jesus’ priesthood to the way God allowed priests before Moses was given the law — they were granted priesthood based on their caliber, not on their lineage. Hebrews refers to this as the “order of Melchizedek,” since Melchizedek was the most prominent person mentioned in the OT to have this honor. Refer to Hebrews 7 if you’d like more info on this.
It’s very difficult to take verse 18 figuratively, and when taken at face value it’s false. Levitical priests do not offer sacrifices today, and haven’t for a very long time. And since it’s hard to take verse 18 figuratively, it’s hard to take 17 figuratively as well. Once again, it fails as a prophecy because Israel is not a monarchy and there hasn’t been a Davidic king in over 2500 years.
When you’re an inerrantist, as I was, it’s hard to know what to do with this information. Do problems like this mean the entire Bible is wrong, or just that particular book? It turns out there are many more problems littered throughout the Bible. We’ll talk about one more in this post, but for more information, feel free to check out the links listed on the home page.
A very clear example is found in Matthew 2:14-15 where we’re told that when Joseph and Mary fled with the infant Jesus to Egypt, it was to fulfill a prophecy from Hosea 11:1, “out of Egypt I called my son.” However, when you read the passage in Hosea, it says this:
When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
And from there, Hosea talks about Israel’s unfaithfulness to the Lord in serving after Baal, etc. Obviously, Hosea is talking about the nation of Israel, and there’s no reference at all to any future event, much less the Messiah. Matthew appropriated this text when he (apparently) created the story of Jesus’ family fleeing to Egypt. Matthew calls this a prophecy, but the original text is anything but. So many of the Bible’s prophecies fall apart in this way when researched.
While actual prophecy fulfillment would go a long way in supporting the notion that the Bible is inspired, in practice, it just doesn’t work out that way. Not only do the apparent prophecies get weaker upon inspection, but some of them are simply false. So if accurate prophecies should make us think the Bible is inspired, what should inaccurate prophecies make us think?
Finding Truth 
“A) Besides intelligence how is appealing to an infinity any less supernatural than appealing to a god? IF atheists can invoke an infinity which has absolutely no proof then how can thy calim that theists are illogical?” – mike
Okay, so god then. I knew we were coming to this. If god, fine, which one now? how many?
how do we then arrive at jesus? or do we?
LikeLike
“your analogy of the red ball seems to suggest that it needed to be dropped in order for it to begin it’s bouncing. ”
No it doesn’t. my analogy was NOT of a ball dropping but a ball bouncing in an infinite universe. In an infinite universe with a bouncing ball it didn’t “need” anything to be dropped it was ALWAYS bouncing. I’m getting the impression you don’t even understand the
implications of infinite and thats EXACTLY why I am requiring a logical answer
“If the ball is not eternally bouncing then eventually it will come to a stop, as since it was dropped, it’s bounces will decline as well over time. There would therefore be both a beginning and an end. ”
exactly and if there were then you would not have an infinite universe and you would be forced to come back to a universe that requires a natural beginning. THATS THE POINT so the answer of an infinite universe doesn’t hold water logically unless you accept a force causing the ball to bounce that has no explanation or process.
“To me a eternally bouncing ball makes not as much sense. Have I answered your question?”
Nope as usual you haven’t I asked how is it different from a supernatural event? Further I don’t even get how you think you can answer for atheists since you claim to not be one or why if you really are not one you feel the need to. Conflicted?
“This analogy therefore still involves eternity, and cause and effect still involves an eternal cause.”
Yes of course it does and thats the entire point you miss completely. – its that either way you go theistic or atheistic you still end up spouting off what really are supernatarul concepts and therefore you (or an atheist) might as well come off the high horse you don’t deal with the supernatural in atheistic explanations
Now since you claim to not be an atheist then perhaps you should make an atheist answer it because it IS their position that the supernatural is not a part of their construct and they have not provided an OUNCE of logic or evidence to back it up.
LikeLike
And Ron,
I don’t think you were being “high and mighty” at all with those scriptures you pointed out 🙂
I just think you were pointing out some scriptures that are important for Christians to consider seriously.
Thanks 🙂
LikeLike
“Okay, so god then. I’
Since the comments don’t have a full ignore function I catch snippets of your nonsense every now and again and am reminded each time why its wise to just skip over your comments without reading.
I never said therefore God then. and yes even more so after reading your twisting you are still being ignored in most posts as best I can – so you can babble on some more about what I didn’t say.
LikeLike
Mike,
I tried. Frankly I’m tired of this, your tone rubs me the wrong way…
My point was that your analogy of a eternally bouncing ball is similiar to an analogy that someone dropped the ball in the sense that the eternal aspect still exists, but is then transferred to the person or force that dropped the ball at the beginning.
So both analogies carry eternal concepts. And you seem to be saying that an eternally bouncing ball makes less sense, which I agree.
This isn’t about winning some debating game to me. It’s about exploring people’s positions.
Seriously man, what do you want from me? 🙂
Please don’t suggest I’m being insincere or allude to any “polite” spade is a spade thing in your next post. You have clearly stated you like calling a spade a spade. I get it.
Thanks for the conversation.
LikeLike
“I never said therefore God then. and yes even more so after reading your twisting you are still being ignored in most posts as best I can – so you can babble on some more about what I didn’t say.”
it’s hard to ignore the points, so in a way, you’re efforts are admirable.
But when you get to it, how does all of this point to jesus? I dont think it does, but earlier, you seemed to indicate that it did.
So, where do we get to god, then one god, then the bible and jesus?
LikeLike
“I just think you were pointing out some scriptures that are important for Christians to consider seriously. ”
Portal I see no evidence you have any credentials of telling Christians anything about their faith or what they should consider seriously. Taking stands for atheists (and I have never seen you do otherwise on any subject) is hardly a biblical fruit of a Christian.
Anyone can claim to be one or to have been one but the discerning Christian is not taken in by internet claims.
LikeLike
@Mike,
The problem here is that when atheists think of the word supernatural we think of woo, and God, and applying attributes to this thing.
If the “uncaused” part of this is what is being called supernatural, then I can concede that. In any case I think we do agree that either the Universe is uncaused or the cause of the Universe is uncaused.
Many scientists (but not all) think that the big bang was a singularity – not the result of an ordered physical law, but was the result of an impossible situation that no laws cover. In other words, it was uncaused. If a supernatural explanation doesn’t need a cause because it is infinite, it is more likely that the natural Universe has existed forever and therefore doesn’t need a cause and is the supernatural in and of itself.
This logic does not provide evidence as to what the first cause actually is. So while both theism and atheism both come to the conclusion that everything that exists must have a cause it takes additional assumptions to conclude any particular cause.
We don’t know what caused the Universe to expand. That’s a fact. Any assertion as to it’s cause is presumptuous. Though I would add, that even though that is the case, and it also does not preclude additional “breaks” in the natural laws of the Universe, one would think there would be evidence of these laws being broken.
For instance, you say that the fact that an event happened that has no apparent cause is evidence of the supernatural then there would be additional evidence, a footprint left, of the supernatural event. You can say we know that a supernatural event occurred at the “Big Bang” because there is evidence of this Bang.
Finally, I would say that I’m intrigued about this whole cosmological problem. My brain is about to explode with information about dark energy and Boltzmann Brains and such.
LikeLike
“My point was that your analogy of a eternally bouncing ball is similiar to an analogy that someone dropped the ball in the sense that the eternal aspect still exists, but is then transferred to the person or force that dropped the ball at the beginning. ”
Good for you. You can make any point you wish but it wasn’t the question.
“Please don’t suggest I’m being insincere or allude to any “polite” spade is a spade thing in your next post. ”
I’ve never known you to be sincere in your complaints about tone. In my experience its a major topic for you only when its a theists making a point
LikeLike
All the best Mike,
LikeLike
“Nope as usual you haven’t I asked how is it different from a supernatural event?”
Where is the evidence for a supernatural event ?
“I don’t even get how you think you can answer for atheists since you claim to not be one or why if you really are not one you feel the need to. Conflicted?”
Berate , berate, berate…………………………..
LikeLike
Mike, are you talking about religion and the bible, or are you only interested in theoretical physics?
I thought you were interested in the bible, but since you continue to avoid the subject, I guess I’m wrong. If you merely want to discuss supernatural vs natural, than I’ll excuse myself.
LikeLike
and it’s not that my comments are ignorant (they’re only questions, based on things you’ve said), and it’s not that there’s really any asinine rule about not answering until Mike’s question gets answered exactly as he’d like it, it’s that you (mike) don’t want to answer the questions.
I think it’s because you really cant and don’t want to have to admit that. I could be wrong, and you could prove that, but so far you continue to bolster my position.
LikeLike
“Many scientists (but not all) think that the big bang was a singularity – not the result of an ordered physical law, but was the result of an impossible situation that no laws cover. In other words, it was uncaused. If a supernatural explanation doesn’t need a cause because it is infinite, it is more likely that the natural Universe has existed forever and therefore doesn’t need a cause and is the supernatural in and of itsel”
Well first off most leading phycisists do NOT maintain that a singularity is the end of the question. No less than Krauss and Hawkings go beyond that. Furthermore the whole idea of a multiverse is predicated on there being more than the singularity in our own universe. No crime in not knowing but I think you will see that the more you read.
Second you are back to stating likely again which is just code word for “I feel” with no logic really to back it up. The truth is physical reality is NOT a good candidate for an uncaused entity because physical things all around us are process – cause and effect driven – Cause and effect processes in an infinity creates absurdities even negating cause and effect like in the bouncing ball universe. IF that were not enough in an eternally operating universe we should not see properties such as entropy which most scientists now say will result in our universe ending in heat death. Something that is infinite cannot EVER die or become inoperable or it would have done so an infinite time ago. In other words the science itself is against the universe being eternal and infinite.
Finally and more important to a baseline for going forward you have just made all of reality a miracle/supernatural so why then a priori against miracles or the supernatural? Why if as you now saw the supernatural is ordinary to the universe would it be extraordinary for there to be one, two or even two hundred? WHy would it require extraordinary evidence and not just good evidence?
LikeLike
“Finally and more important to a baseline for going forward you have just made all of reality a miracle/supernatural so why then a priori against miracles or the supernatural? Why if as you now saw the supernatural is ordinary to the universe would it be extraordinary for there to be one, two or even two hundred? WHy would it require extraordinary evidence and not just good evidence?” – mike
I said this was coming as soon as this line of conversation started… we could be so far ahead right now.
so fine, what’s your good evidence that there were miracles and that the bible is really god’s word ant that jesus is really his son who really died, and who really rose again and flew into heaven?
but there’s no evidence… we’re just backing to to point, the big bang, and asking “where did that come from?” since no one knows, you’re saying it must be supernatural… and if supernatural, why not miracles… These are huge leaps, build off of big assumptions.
Maybe youre right, but so far, there have been many things that were thought to be supernatural that have since been shown to be quite natural, so why cant the cause be natural,and that we just havent found a way to explain that yet? But again, let’s ignore this, because as i’ve said before, there is no answer right now.
and again, I said this was coming as soon as this line of conversation started… we could be so far ahead right now.
so fine, what’s your good evidence that there were miracles and that the bible is really god’s word ant that jesus is really his son who really died, and who really rose again and flew into heaven?
LikeLike
@Mike,
Well first off most leading phycisists do NOT maintain that a singularity is the end of the question.
I’m not sure why you read that “most lead physicists maintain that a singularity is the end of the question” into that. I was re-stating your case that the cause was not the result of ordered natural laws.
In the entire thing I was conceding the supernatural which you maintained. But that the supernatural “thing”, whatever it was, left a footprint – the Big Bang.
If supernatural events leave such tremendous footprints, where are the rest of them?
LikeLike
The assumption is that God is, which is the foundational statement of all presuppositional apologists/apologetics.
They neither feel compelled to qualify this statement nor justify it.
The simple assumption being that anyone who disagrees is either non compos mentis or in league with the ”Devil’ and obviously “Hell bent” on corrupting innocent, god-fearing folk.
This of course is the perfect indicator of the indoctrinated mind.
Of course, on a blog such as this, those god-fearing folk are naturally Christians.
And of course, not any old Christian, but the right kind.
This , naturally, excludes all Christians who are not the same as the Christian making the statement about the right Christian.
Specifically, Catholics,I’m sure, and Young Earth Creationists, who are , quite frankly, simply mental; but also, no doubt, quite a number of the other 40,000 or so denominations.
Of course, it goes without saying that even though they genuflect to an incarnation/ version of Yahweh, Jews and Muslims are excluded from this ”club”.
It should, therefore, be mandatory for the Christian, to actually state which version of Yahweh they worship and offer at least some evidence of this deity before they begin to lambaste non- believers for their woefully inept un-cherrypicked biblical interpretation.
LikeLike
“These issues also impact notions about the existence of gods with disembodied minds. Since everything we know about minds, thinking, memories, and personalities requires the existence of a physical brain as a basis, it’s difficult to credit the idea that a disembodied mind without a brain is even possible. Religious theists have certainly not offered any explanation for how this would even be theoretically possible, much less provide evidence for it being an actual state of affairs. It is unlikely that such a disembodied mind exists and, therefore, that a god exists.
None of this is unequivocal proof that no gods can or do exist, nor does it prove that no religions are or can be true. It does, however, provide a strong basis for doubting that some of the most fundamental claims about gods and religions are true. Although they are not logically excluded from being true, they are excluded from being very likely true. This amount of contrary evidence makes belief unreasonable.” (atheism.about.com)
LikeLike
“If supernatural events leave such tremendous footprints, where are the rest of them?”
Ruth upon what are you building this strawman that supernatural events must leave tremendous footprints? an uncaused thing has no process behind it so claiming that there must be some big process that leaves this big footprint really doesn’t hold muxh water
Is this a way of maintaining the extraordinary evidence claim?
LikeLike
@ Mike,
Do you believe all claims of miracles/supernatural? How do you decide what is real supernatural from what is fake supernatural?
No, that’s not a way of maintaining the extraordinary evidence claim? But how does one accept a supernatural claim without evidence? Who gets to decide what constitutes “good” evidence?
LikeLike
“Ruth upon what are you building this strawman that supernatural events must leave tremendous footprints?”
the whole discussion is a strawman, smart guy. all built upon guesses and wishes.
LikeLike
@ Mike,
Am I misunderstanding something? Are you saying that the Big Bang – or whatever began time (the uncaused cause) – is evidence of the supernatural?
LikeLike
@KC,
I do think there is some misunderstanding here about what atheists actually think. I don’t think I’ve ever said that the supernatural was an completely impossible. I’ve stated all along that this would be a presumptuous position.
It is quite obvious that the Bible is good enough evidence for people to believe in those miraculous claims. Theists proclaim them all the time. Why is offensive for atheists to question their veracity or even outright proclaim their disbelief in these.
Why is it ridiculing or belittling to Christians for atheists to state why they don’t find it convincing? Are Christians ridiculing and belittling atheists when they state why they find the claims believable?
LikeLike
“Are Christians ridiculing and belittling atheists when they state why they find the claims believable?”
Not necessarily. I’ve not found Mainstream Christians to be this way during my relatively short blogging experiences. I did find this interesting however about Fundamentalists.
“In the context of monotheism fundamentalism is the type of religious behaviour that takes a central religious text and places in such a holy, sacred place that it becomes considered infallible and from God rather than from man Fundamentalists take the tenets of their religion so seriously that Earthly evidence will not dissuade them from their religious views, and morality itself pales in comparison to what they think God’s will is. (http://www.humanreligions.info/fundamentalism.html#Intro)
Sound familiar ?
LikeLike
“No, that’s not a way of maintaining the extraordinary evidence claim? But how does one accept a supernatural claim without evidence? ”
Sigh more straw men.Who said anything about “without evidence” ruth? how many times do I have to state that My issue is not with good evidence but with the never defined “extraordinary” evidence?
“No, that’s not a way of maintaining the extraordinary evidence claim? But how does one accept a supernatural claim without evidence? Who gets to decide what constitutes “good” evidence?”
Aaaaah so perhaps now you can see my issue? If you can have hesitation on an atheist blog that shares your view about who determines what is good evidence then can you imagine what hesitation I would have going into any discussion where the perfectly undefined “extraordinary evidence” is allegedly the standard.
“Am I misunderstanding something? Are you saying that the Big Bang – or whatever began time (the uncaused cause) – is evidence of the supernatural?”
Of course. I guess I am as confused as you are because we have been talking about just that for days and as far as I can tell you were just about conceding that
” I don’t think I’ve ever said that the supernatural was an completely impossible. I’ve stated all along that this would be a presumptuous position.”
and why would it be a presumptuous position when you just were saying the universe has a supernatural cause in itself? You seem to be saying two opposite things at the same time
“It is quite obvious that the Bible is good enough evidence for people to believe in those miraculous claims.”
Its quite obvious you haven’t discussed things with theists in any wide way because I know no apologist who says the Bible has miracles that proves it – the end. Actually if the Bible started with the Gospel stories I would not believe it at all.
The only thing still remaining is the very issue you just raised. Whats going to be the basis of evidence? If there is a priori about anything that mentions the supernatural even though the universe has had supernatural events then whats going to be the point?
Even you must realize that no matter what is put up by me there will be a whole lot of foaming at the mouth, nonsense and spittle from at least half the readers here including the usual culprits Ark,Arch, William and Ron so why in the world would I bother where theres not even a defined standard but just this so elastic “extraordinary evidence” claim?
.
LikeLike